<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (7) TMI 369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154724</link>
    <description>Rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is limited to mistakes apparent on the record and cannot be used to determine disputed questions of fact. Whether the date of hearing was the first hearing date and whether the assessee was required to produce books of account on that date were contested factual matters, not obvious record errors. The rectification application was therefore rightly rejected, and no relief was available under section 22.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:18:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154724</link>
      <description>Rectification under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is limited to mistakes apparent on the record and cannot be used to determine disputed questions of fact. Whether the date of hearing was the first hearing date and whether the assessee was required to produce books of account on that date were contested factual matters, not obvious record errors. The rectification application was therefore rightly rejected, and no relief was available under section 22.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>